A reply to Tom Bathurst

In response to the media attention that has focused on the pending release of Phillip Choon Tee Lim, one of Dr Victor Chang's killers, Tom Bathurst QC, Senior Vice-President of the NSW Bar Association, sent these letters to newspapers published in Sydney.

I replied as follows:

Dear Sir

PHILLIP CHOON TEE LIM: LETTER TO THE EDITOR

I refer to the above matter and to your letter to the editor of the Daily Telegraph published on 30 October 2009.

I agree with everything you wrote and the importance of saying it. It is important there are sensible criteria for determining parole and, more fundamentally, for determining sentence.

There is something, though, that was not said and appears not to be frequently (if ever) acknowledged by the Bar Association and it is this:

1. The criteria used to determine sentence or parole are not themselves objective criteria. These criteria are the product of a more fundamental penal philosophy. Neither the criteria nor the more fundamental philosophy are somehow sacred.

2. Some penal philosophies focus on retributive justice, others remedial. Some treat certain crimes as being particularly serious and worthy of harsh retributive justice, others do not. Some make allowance for corporate punishment, others consider that barbaric.

3. The media reports what is news-worthy. It is very mundane that there are thousands of people in prison and that there is a parole system. When we hear about a particular case, it is usually because the victim or criminal is famous (or infamous).

4. It is through being informed of particular or individual cases by the media that the general public express their views about the justice or injustice of outcomes. These cases are the back-drop of the discussion.

5. While it is true that the vast majority of people are uninformed about sentencing guidelines or how a particular person has behaved himself in prison, the community outrage can be interpreted as being towards something more fundamental, namely the criteria by which sentence or parole is determined and the underlying penal philosophy.

6. It might be that rapists and murderers are all being treated very uniformly, precisely according to precedent, sentencing guidelines and parole procedures, but that is no answer at all to those who feel as though those precedents, sentencing guidelines and parole procedures do not yield just results; to those who feel the whole penal philosophy is askew or too light a touch; to those who feel it does not honour victims or treat their plight with the seriousness it deserves.

What is the problem?

In this article, it is reported that former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, is conditionally upset. He is upset if it is the case that the Vatican only put the Archbishop of Canterbury on two weeks' notice of an invitation to Anglo-Catholic clergy to join the Roman Catholic Church in light of any discontentment they might have with the ordination of female bishops, and so forth.

My question is why would George Carey be "disturbed" by this?

Roman Catholics and Anglicans have always welcomed movement from one to the other. The Roman Catholics have always had their 'Councils' in which they reckon salvation is associated with membership with the Roman Catholic Church (or dispensed by the Roman Catholic Church). Historically, they have persecuted protestants. Articled Anglicanism has always asserted Rome's distinctive doctrines are 'fond things, vainly invented'. It is not as though the two are or have ever been friendly traditions. Why the pretense?

For my part, and although I am neither ordained nor an Anglo-Catholic (to objects of the invitation), I would never join the Roman Catholic Church. I see it as a glittering sarcophagus on the outside. Worms and putrifaction on the inside. Its doctrines are unbiblical, its doctrine of salvation does not give all the glory to God, it does not take sin as seriously as it deserves and its doctrine of prayer is absurd. Although he typed it quickly and so there are typos, Steve Hays, quoting G. Twelftree, People of the Spirit: Exploring Luke’s View of the Church (Baker 2009) does a great job showing from the Gospel of Luke that Roman Catholic distinctives are bunk: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/10/lukan-ecclesiology.html

But the invitation is to Anglo-Catholics. They are basically Roman Catholics, anyway. What is more, different 'Anglicans' find themselves in different contexts. For example, I don't find myself in the context of a deviant Anglican diocese who promotes a sexual morality that the Bible abhors. My local framework is strongly Bible-believing (God's word is the ULTIMATE authority) Christian. The same is not necessarily true for the objects of the Roman invitation. They might find themselves in Dioceses who overtly exchange the truth of God for a lie, Dioceses who love and promote sexual sin and worship an idolatrous concept of the true God. They might find themselves in a completely untenable situation in the context of their surroundings. While I would encourage them to adopt a Reformed faith and adapt their practices so they promote the spread of the gospel in the modern world (and I believe they are morally culpable if they do not do this), from their perspective, why would they not find an invitation enticing in a context where their immediate context is saying evil is good? Why get upset about the invitation? These people may (subjectively) believe it is the best of bad options.

A letter in response to Catherine Deveny on marriage

Dear Ms Deveny,

I refer to your article titled Weddings? I prefer funerals - they're far more real and published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 16 September 2009.

Your words are quoted in italics; my comments are in plain font.

“I'm against marriage full stop. Why are we hanging on to this relic of an anachronistic system (which still reeks of misogyny and bigotry), established so men could own women to ensure their estates and titles were passed on to their kids - sorry, their sons? Time to ditch it.”

1. For someone who speaks negatively of that which “reeks of... bigotry,” it sure seems you are guilty of that in respect of marriage.

2. Your comments make numerous assumptions which are not argued for and which you seem to expect a reader to swallow at face value.

3. Since a large proportion of the population currently marry, how is marriage ‘an anachronistic system’? Marriage would only be anachronistic if (i) marriage were only something conventional and limited to a specific age AND (ii) in a broader context of the non-existence of marriage, there were rare ‘out-of-place’ instances of marriage. But that is not what we have here, is it?

4. Since marriage is intended to be a voluntary exclusive life-long union of a man and a woman, how exactly is it misogynistic? Unless you are a misandrist (or have an asymmetrical problem with women committing exclusively), what is wrong with a woman having an exclusive life-long union with a man? Do you think fleeting, temporary or ‘oat-sowing’ relationships are more fulfilling and beneficial for women?

5. Marriage promotes the idea that a man’s wife (a woman) is a life-long partner, someone to whom he owes publicly committed obligations. If a man breaches those obligations, he is shown a liar in front of all those who witnessed his promises.

6. Since marriage exists and has existed in all cultures for which we have historical data, where, exactly, do you obtain this ‘pre-history’ insight that it was “established so men could own women to ensure their estates and titles were passed on to their kids - sorry, their sons”?

7. As an aside, do you have some objective standard by which to condemn inheritance-based cultures? Or are you just assuming the microcosm in which you find yourself is the measure of all things?

8. If your objection to marriage is your groundless belief that it was established to ensure inheritance to sons, what is your problem with marriage now given the primary determiner of to whom one’s estate passes is the will, which is an instrument any adult can make whether married or not?

9. A man can (married or not) make a will that inequitably distributes his estate. A woman also can (married or not) make a will that inequitably distributes her estate. Any inequity is not the result of any marriage rather simply the inequitable decision of the testator.

10. Since in our culture the dominant model of marriage is the Christian model, inherited largely from England, how do you say it is about ownership of women when, according to Christian thought:

a. Both men and women are created equal, both being the image bearers of God,

b. A man must love his wife sacrificially, in other words put her interests above and ahead of his own, and

c. A man must cherish his wife?

11. When you say assert “time to ditch it”:

a. What are you suggesting ought to happen to those already married?

b. What are you suggesting for those who wish to marry?

c. Are you suggesting that marriage should be legislated against?

d. Or are you just making throw-away comments without actually thinking them through?

e. What is your objective standard by which you determine the timeliness of ‘getting rid of things’? Or are these are just your own subjective comments stated as though there was some truth to them?

“Marriage doesn't work.”

1. Is that right?

2. Whether something works or not is a measure of whether it is properly functioning. That, in turn, presupposes it has a purpose which it is not achieving. Well, since you make the allegation:

a. What do you say marriage qua marriage is failing to achieve?

b. Whatever problems you perceive, how do you lay them at the feet of marriage qua marriage rather than on particular wrong-doing marriage partners?

“For evidence, see the divorce rate climbing closer to 50 per cent with every click on the rsvp.com.au website.”

1. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the divorce rate, rather that ‘climbing’, is actually declining: http://abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/9348900D7C208809CA2576200015A9FB?opendocument

2. If by “with every click on the rsvp.com.au website” you mean that spouses searching beyond the bounds of their marriage are doing their marriages harm, then “d’uh!!!” If spouses do not take seriously their obligations to each other and the life-long nature of their obligations, then of course they are going to muck up their marriages!

3. This seems obvious to me but the causes of marital breakdown are anti-marriage behaviours and ideas. Selfishness rather than putting your spouse first, the breaking of marital intimacy, lack of commitment and disregard for the promises made, lack of open communication and so forth. The prevalence of these destructive behaviours is not an argument that they should be encouraged or that people should not even bother trying to overcome them to live lives of life-long faithfulness. Your reasoning is wholly upside-down.

“The waving of the magic wedding wand is no guarantee of a successful marriage or a happy family.”

1. No, of course, not, but which sensible person thinks otherwise?

2. Of course the mere fact of getting married does not entail that those getting married take their promises seriously. It does not guarantee they will keep those promises. But that is a fault with the promise-breakers, not marriage.

3. On the other hand, there is plenty of data that shows marriage promotes happiness, better health and better financial security compared with non-marriage. See, for example, Waite, L & Gallagher, M, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier and Better Off Financially (New York: Random House, 2000).

4. There is abundant research that de facto arrangements result in poorer relational outcomes than marriage. De factos are more likely to undergo dissolution of the relationship whether or not they eventually marry, and report being both less committed to and less happy with their relationships: Brines, J & Joyner, K, The ties that bind: Principles of cohesion in cohabitation and marriage, American Sociological Review. Albany: Jun 1999. Vol. 64, Iss. 3; p. 333; de Vaus, D. & Ors, Cohabitation and Marital Stability: Summary of Results, Eight Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference: http://users.bigpond.net.au/david-devaus/My-Papers/cohab/cohab-paper.htm ; Waite, L & Joyner, K, Emotional satisfaction and physical pleasure in sexual unions: Time horizon, sexual behavior, and sexual exclusivity, Journal of Marriage and Family. Minneapolis: Feb 2001. Vol. 63, Iss. 1; p. 247; Weston, R & Ors, Partnership formation and stability. Paper presented at the 9th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference.

5. In other words, it is what you promote that is emotionally and relationally backward.

What actually is Christian unity (or communion)?

This question is relevant to the crisis the Anglican church has faced in recent years.

Is 'being in communion' about mere formal acknowledgement that you fall under the same label as others in other places? Or is it a matter of substance? If a matter of substance, then why bother with the formal pretence?

Since a Christian's ultimate standard is God's Word, let's see what it has to say on the matter:

1. 1 Cor. 1:9: "God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful."
2. 2 Cor. 6:14: "14Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"
3. Gal. 2:9: "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews."
4. 1 John 1:3: "We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ."
5. Phil 2:1-2: "If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. "

The above demonstrate that being in communion (fellowship) refers to a religious sharing, a religious commonness. It is concrete and substantial. It is about being united in Christ, who is LORD. It is not about being united under a mere name that includes those who deny God incarnate is LORD. Being in communion is about the unity of God's elect. Being in communion necessarily presupposes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, regeneration and a process of sanctification. It is the sign of an unregenerate who denies Christ as LORD of all and the absolute authority of His Word. This is because God, by His nature, is absolutely authoritative and chosing any authority apart from Him is idolatory.

The SAD state of the Anglican community

The Sydney Morning Herald has today published an article titled Believe it or not, the bishop's an agnostic. It can be found here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/believe-it-or-not-the-bishops-an-agnostic/2009/05/19/1242498751437.html

The title seems to suggest that it is unbelievable that an Anglican bishop would not believe in God. While it should be unbelievable, the sad fact is that the Anglican church is littered with liberals who do not believe in God, reject Christian doctrine, reject the authority of God's Word, and so forth.

The bishop in question, Richard Holloway, argues that since Anglicanism has included an openly gay bishop and even practitioners of other religions, that there is no reason why he cannot be part of the Anglican church. There is a certain logic to Holloway's position, but it is devious reasoning. It argues that sin permits sin, except it doesn't call it sin. Once you move away from a Biblical position, placing Christ firmly in the centre and bending the knee to God's authoritative revelation to us, then it is 'anything goes'.

According to the article, he "still preaches from the pulpit, performs baptisms and weddings and even presides at communion." This is unacceptable: heretics need to be given the flick. They cannot be welcome in the church. The Bible doesn't mince words about this and nor should we (2 John 1:7-11):

" 7Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work. "

Variation on a theme of Richard Taylor

Say you are in a train and looking outside the window at one of the stops you see numerous stones scattered about on a small hill near the train in a patter resembling these letters: WELCOME TO WOLLONGONG. Now you could hardly doubt that these stones do not just accidentally happen to exhibit that pattern. You would, in fact, feel quite certain that they were purposefully arranged that way to convey an intelligible message. At the same time, however, you could not prove, just from a consideration of their arrangement alone, that they were arranged by a purposeful being. It is possible – at least logically so – that there was no guiding hand at all in back of this pattern, that it is simply the result of the operations of inanimate nature. It is possible that the stones, one by one, rolled down the hill and, over the course of centuries, finally ended up in that interesting arrangement, or that they came in some other accidental way to be so related to one another.

The important point, though, is that if, upon seeing from the train window a group of stones arranged as described, you were to conclude that you were entering Wollongong, and if your sole reason for thinking this, whether it was in fact good evidence or not, was that the stones were so arranged, then you could not, consistently with that, suppose that the arrangement of the stones was accidental. You would, in fact, be presupposing that they were arranged that way of an intelligent and purposeful being or beings for the purpose of conveying a certain message having nothing to do with the stones themselves. Another way of expressing this is that it would be irrational for you to regard the arrangement of the stones as evidence that you were entering Wollongong , and at the same time to suppose that they might have come to have that arrangement accidentally, that is, as the result of the ordinary interactions of natural or physical forces. If, for instance, they came to be arranged over the course of time simply by their rolling down the hill, one by one, and finally just happened to end up that way, or if they were strewn upon the ground that way by the forces of an earthquake or whatever, then their arrangement would in no sense constitute evidence that you were entering Wollongong, or for anything whatever unconnected with themselves.

Consider another example. Suppose a stone were dug up and found to be covered with interesting marks, all more or less the same size and more or less in rows. Suppose further that the marks on this stone are found to resemble the characters of an ancient alphabet. Now you might consider this stone to be the product of nature geological forces. But now suppose that these marks are recognised by a scholar having a knowledge of that alphabet, and that with considerable uncertainty due to the obscurity of some of the marks and the obliteration of others, he renders a translation of them as follows: HERE AWAKABEL FELL LEADING A BAND OF THE CAMMERAYGAL AGAINST THE EORA TRIBE. Now you might still maintain that the marks are accidental, that they are only scratches left by volcanic activity or whatever, and that it is only a singular coincidence that they resemble, more or less, some intelligible message. If, however, anyone having knowledge of the stones concludes, solely on the basis of it, that there was someone named Awakabel who died in battle near where this stone was found, the he cannot, rationally, suppose that the marks on the stone are the result of chance or purposeless operations of the forces of nature. He must, on the contrary, assume that they were inscribed there by someone whose purpose was to record an historical fact. If the marks had a purposeless origin, then they cannot reveal any fact whatever except perhaps certain facts about themselves or their origin. It would, accordingly, be irrational for anyone to suppose both that what is seemingly expressed by the marks is true, and also that they appeared as the result of nonpurposeful forces, provided the marks are his sole evidence for believing that what they seem to say is true.

Our own organs of sense, to say nothing of our brains and nervous systems, are things of the most amazing and bewildering complexity and delicacy. Some of these organs strikingly resemble things purposefully designed and fabricated by men. It is sometimes almost irresistible, when considering such a thing as the eye, to suppose that, however it may have originated, it is constructed in that manner in order to enable its possessor to see. On the other hand we have people like Dawkins who want to say that our organs are the accidental and unintended results of perfectly impersonal, nonpurposeful forces.

The important point, however, is that we do not simply marvel at these structures, and wonder how they came to be that way. We do not simply view them as amazing and striking things, and speculate upon their origins. We, in fact, rely on them for the discovery of things that we suppose to be true and that we suppose to exist quite independently of those organs themselves. We suppose, without even thinking about it, that they reveal to us thing that have nothing to do with themselves, their structures, or their origins. Just as we supposed that the stones on the hill told us that we were entering Wollongong – a fact having nothing to do with the stones themselves – so also we suppose that our sense in some manner tell us what is true, at least sometimes. The stones on the hill could have been an accident, in which case we cannot suppose that they really tell us anything at all. So also, our senses and all our faculties could be accidental in their origins, and in that case they do not really tell us anything either. But the fact remains that we do trust them, without the slightest reflection on the matter. Our seeing something is often thought to be, quite by itself, a good reason for believing that the thing exists, and it would be absurd to suggest that we infer this from the structure of our eyes as speculations upon their evolutionary origins. And so it is with all our faculties. Our remembering something is often considered to be, quite by itself, a good reason for believing that the thing remembered did happen. Our hearing a sound is often considered, quite by itself, a good reason for believing that a sound exists; and so on. We do not believe merely that our senses are remarkable interesting things. We do not believe merely that they produce interesting effects within us, nor merely that they produce beliefs in us. We assume that they are trustworthy guides with respect to what is true, and what exists, independently of our senses and their origins; and we still assume this, even where they are our only guides.

We saw that it would be irrational for anyone to say both that the marks he found on the stone had a natural, nonpurposeful origin and also that they reveal some truth with respect to something other than themselves, something that is not merely inferred from them. One cannot rationally believe both of these things. So also it would be irrational for one to say both that his sensory and cognitive faculties had a natural, nonpurposeful origin and also that they reveal some truth with respect to something other than themselves, something that is not merely inferred from them. If their origin can be entirely accounted for in terms of chance variations, natural selection, and so on, without supposing that they somehow embody and express the purposes of some creative being, then the most we can say of them is that they exist, that they are complex and wondrous in their construction, and are perhaps in other respects interesting and remarkable. We cannot say that they are, entirely be themselves, reliable guides to any truth whatever, save only what can be inferred from their own structure and arrangement. If, on the other hand, we do say that they are guides to some truths having nothing to do with themselves, the it is difficult to see how we can, consistently with that, believe them to have arisen by accident, or be the ordinary workings of purposeless forces, even over ages of time.

Do Morphological Similarities Imply Common Descent?

Peter Pike, a Christian blogger, makes the following insightful observations:

"One of the most commonly used evidences for Darwinism is the fact of morphological similarities between various organisms. To put it simply, many organisms look like each other. These similarities extend not just through the physical phenotype, but also into the genotype as well. Indeed, much hay is made over the fact that chimp DNA is 98% similar to human DNA (although that figure has been questioned recently).

"Rather than looking at some specific examples, I want to first look at the concept as a whole. Is it true that morphological similarities imply common descent from an original species?

"It is certainly true that similarities can indicate descent. We see examples of this in the genome all the time, especially with recessive and dominant genes that obviously follow a hereditary tree. But we have equal evidence of similarities that do not follow heredity, that do not imply common descent.

"One obvious example of this is found if you look in the parking lot at your local mall. You will see various “organisms” of vehicles out there: Ford, Chevy, Nissan, Mazda, etc. All of these vehicles have similar structure, are made from similar materials, and are used in similar manners. Yet we know that the Chevy did not evolve from Ford except insofar as the design was copied by an intelligent agent. As a result of this simple concept, we see that morphological similarities need not imply common descent; they can also imply design.

"And we do not need to restrict ourselves to non-biological aspects to see this. Ernst Mayr, for instance, argued that eyes evolved independently over 40 times in the fossil record. That is, eyes formed in various species in the fossil record after the theorized branching point between the two species had already occurred, which is to say that both daughter species came from a common ancestor that was blind, yet both developed eyes anyway. Further evidence is found in the concept of Convergent Evolution, which states (for example) that all birds have the same basic wing shape because it is necessary for flight, not because they all share a common ancestor. In other words, convergent evolution of the wing shape, of eyes, and of myriad other aspects are already acknowledged by Darwinists to not be evidence of common descent, but instead of common use.

"Because morphological similarities need not be evidence of common descent (as evidenced by the convergent evolution theory) and they can be evidence of common design (as seen in a myriad number of intelligently designed machines that look alike in order to perform a specific similar function), morphological similarities do not imply common descent. At most, all a Darwinist can say is that morphological similarities are consistent with Darwinism; but the intelligent design advocate can make the same claim about I.D. As such, this often offered argument for Darwinism proves nothing."